> Well, he claims that diacritics are bad.
Why? I don't think that they're bad. Does he give an exact reason why he
thinks that they're bad? I'd like to know what he's thinking on that
one. Also Somali has 2 other non Latin scripts. I like them both. You
can see them at Omniglot <
http://www.omniglot.com> . Which is an
excellent site about writing systems of all types.
Hope you enjoy it if you've never heard of it. But something tells me
you have.....You know they have a forum too? I'm a member! It's awesome!
Any way that's all the questions that I have until something else comes
up. :)
â¥Brittanieâ¥
--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
>
> Well, he claims that diacritics are bad.
>
> Somali uses a roman alphabet without diacritics. There's nothing wrong
with digraphs.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Don Osborn dzo@...
> To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:24:45 PM
> Subject: Re: "FaYe" - a proposed new script for Yoruba
>
> Thanks Peter. You're probably right, but I generally give such
> proposals some respect, even while being skeptical. The N'Ko movement
> after all began half a century ago with Souleuman Kante (not a trained
> linguist or typographer) deciding to develop an alphabet for Manding.
> The relative success of that may be the exception and in any event the
> space for new alphabet inventions is changing: It is both easier to
> develop an alphabet idea and publicize it, and less likely that it
> actually be widely adopted.
>
> On the other hand, the two invented alphabets (of the several) in
> Africa that seem to be having the most success are N'Ko and perhaps
> Mandombe (which was created in the '70s in what is now D.R. Congo
> mainly for Kongo language). Not sure what conclusions to draw except
> that it may reflect more than people with too much time on their
> hands: is there something with the Latin orthographies for African
> languages that somehow just doesn't work for some of their speakers?
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]